Live from the Council

Intense traffic made us rather late for tonight’s Council meeting, but here we are –  bringing you the news, the jokes and the intrigue.

Tonight’s meeting began with public petitions.

First we heard from Mr Dulal Uddin of Poplar High Street.  He had taken a petition signed by several hundred local residents calling on the Licensing Committee not to grant a new shop a licence to sell alcohol.  One shop recently had its alcohol licence revoked, and there appears to have been a reduction in anti-social behaviour in the street as a result.  This left one shop selling alcohol anyway. He was at the Council to protest that the Committee had granted the licence.  Cllr Ohid Ahmed pointed out that the Mayor and Cabinet had no responsibility for licensing matters and invited Labour’s Cllr Amina Ali, Chair of Licensing (after less than a year on the Council! a Chair!  Who would have thought it?).  Cllr Ali said they had weighed matters up carefully before granting the license.  She suggested that many of the protestors at the Licensing Committee were shopkeepers who feared competition: this was clearly a nonsense, as those shopkeepers would not have had alcohol licences themselves – but perhaps she was caught off guard by being invited to speak.

Second, we had a petition from Ms Tahsin Ahmed and others asking the Council not to take out any new contracts with G4S and Veolia because of their human rights records, etc.  Labour’s Cllr John Pierce asked the petitioners if they were fed up because they kept coming to the Council and were ignored.  The Conservative Cllr Chris Chapman warned the petitioners there would be costs to the taxpayer if contracts were broken and asked them if they could substantiate the allegations they were making against reputable companies.  Petitioners pointed out that they had been campaigning for years; they were talking about new contracts not going to these companies (for example, the rubbish contract was shortly going out to tender) not breaking contracts and incurring penalties, and of course they could substantiate their allegations.

The third group of petitioners, who seemed to oppose moving vote counting to venues outside the borough, were not present, so we move on to questions from the public.

The first question was  a complaint by a Tower Hamlets leaseholder, asking why Tower Hamlets Homes’ leaseholder services were so dreadful.  Cabinet Member Rabina Khan replied, giving detail about how she and the mayor were working on improvements – and she invited the questioner to meet her to discuss the details of her own problems.

The second question was a complain by an East End Homes resident from the Holland estate.  He pointed out that East End Homes seemed intent on demolishing a block which was against what had been promised in the Offer Document (the basis on which tenants voted for transfer).  Cllr Khan said she would work with residents to ensure East End Homes implemented its offer document.

The third question was from Mark Taylor, who wanted to know what the Mayor was doing to improve the lot of private tenants.  Cllr Khan said that things were difficult under this Government, which supported private landlords in the main.  Mark Taylor asked Cllr Khan’s opinion on the Government shovelling housing benefit on to rogue landlords but cutting Councils’ funding so that it was hard for them to enforce standards.  Cllr Khan readily agreed to write to the Minister about this discrepancy.

The fourth question was a very open one from Azizur Rahman, asking what government cuts meant for the people of the borough.  Cllr Alibor Choudhury listed government cuts to the borough’s funding which amounted to at least £61 million over the last three years.  He gave a vivid summary of what residents are suffering as a result of these cuts and related cuts in government funding of other public services.

The fifth question was from Eileen Short, asking for support for the March for Homes.  Cllr Rabina Khan welcomed the March.  She noted that the political parties had done nothing for social housing during their respective years in office – but were now turning their attentions to this issue, now that there was a General Election coming up.

Cllr Khan then moved a procedural motion to change the order of business so that the Council could debate a motion which Cllr Abjol Miah had tabled and which dealt with support for that March.  Sixteen Tower Hamlets Councillors voted to take the motion, but the Tories and Labour Councillors present voted against, so it was not taken.

We then moved on to the Mayor’s report.  Mayor Lutfur Rahman wished everyone a belated New Year.  He congratulated Tower Hamlets Primary Care Commissioning Team for winning “best PCC”.  He listed some funding which the borough had won to improve its housing stock.  He made a reference to how he had kept the nurseries open (they had been threatened with closure in the forthcoming budget).  Cllr Rachael Saunders, Leader of the Labour Group, seemed to forget her promise that the Council Chamber would, under her leadership, see positive political debate and did a loud stage laugh at this – which many of the Labour Group tried to join in with.  The Mayor regretted the news that the Chilcott Report had been delayed.  He confirmed that he would work positively with the Commissioners, while still disagreeing with the basis on which they had been sent in.

Cllr Saunders responded.  She said she had hoped that there was going to be a new spirit of openness and transparency and the Council would learn what the mayor had done when he had been taking legal action against the government onslaught – but although there appears to be an item on this, it is restricted and cannot be made public.  She criticised the Mayor for threatening to make cuts in services needed by vulnerable people.  She said her Party was worried about how the streets were going to be kept clean, and Cllr Amy Whitelock interrupted proceedings to move a procedural motion that she be allowed to move an emergency motion.  Twenty-six Labour and Tory councillors voted that this be taken.

Cllr Whitelock started moving the motion, beginning by lecturing the Tower Hamlets First councillors that she hoped they took rubbish seriously.  She referred to a document, a wholesale new Waste Management Strategy, which had been due to go to Cabinet but had been withdrawn.  She thought it should all be discussed openly and in public.  Despite its restricted circulation, local residents had been expressing their dissatisfaction with the withdrawn and not-debated document to her.  The strategy had serious failings, such as not having a local depot.  She admitted that when rubbish was not collected, if a report was made to the Council it was taken away: but she didn’t want the contractor missing collections, or so much flytipping, in the first place.

Cllr Pearce said this issue was too important to let the mayor fail yet again.  An Iron Curtain had been drawn across the borough.  The Mayor had a failed legacy: he talks left, but acts right.  Too  much had been outsourced.  Labour urged him to stop blaming the Tory and New Labour Governments.

Cllr Alibor Choudhury then spoke.  He pointed out that Labour Councillors often asked questions and got answers and seemed happy; they got reports at Overview & Scrutiny and seemed happy – but then they came to the Council and said it was all terrible.  Cllr Choudhury pointed out that the Council could not interfere with the tendering process: whether there were local depots or not would be something companies would put in their bids, not stipulated by the Council.

The Tories’ Chris Chapman supported the motion.  He referred to the Council’s failure to clear rubbish regularly from the Samuda estate (forgetting to point out that this estate was the responsibility of its landlord, not the Council).

Cllr Shiria then went into a long rang, apparently accusing the mayor of being Scrooge for threatening to cut nurseries.  She asked for bulk rubbish collection fees to be withdrawn – but did not suggest how this should be funded.

Cllr Ohid Ahmed made a joke about people speaking rubbish.  He then went on to talk about how very difficult it was to run the Council when the budget was being cut so much.  It was easy enough to come to the Council Chamber and criticise, but hard to find solutions.

The Tory Cllr Peter Gold then spoke – he referred to councillors recycling themselves through parties and tried to make a joke about rubbish being taken away to Barking by the Mayor’s car.  He echoed the point about the Iron Curtain in the borough: the Isle of Dogs had a lot of rubbish.  He made a few other puns about rubbish.  He thought it was typical of the Council to hide behind “confidentiality” in order to stop discussing strategy on services like rubbish collection.  He too went on about One Housing Group collecting bulk rubbish rather than disposing of it properly: it was not at all clear how this was relevant.

Cllr Saunders spoke about how the Mayor had promised not to make cuts.  She thought he should have been brave and promised to make tough decisions on the basis of consulting people.  (She did not mention if John Biggs had done this.)  She hoped that the Lead Member would speak in the debate and thought he should stand up to the Mayor.   She thought the rubbish service should be brought back in house.

Cllr Danny Hassell then echoed Cllr Whitelock: officers did well sorting removal of rubbish when it was reported, but they appeared not capable of managing the contract.  There had been a problem in his ward over the summer, just because one lorry was out of order, and no communication with residents.  He spoke against any idea that there should be a depot out of the Borough.

Cllr Chesterton pointed out that rubbish was taken away from Northumberland Wharf down the Thames: he thought that should continue.

Cllr Clare Harrison spoke (loudly) about the motion.  She wanted rubbish collection services to be improved.  She also thought that debate was being shut down on the basis that there was a tendering process and this was wrong – and premature.

Cllr Marc Francis spoke in favour of looking at an in-house bid: this might help the Town Hall be able to manage the contract better.  He also thought the decision to charge for bulk rubbish had been counterproductive too.  He referred to a decision taken five years ago to start food waste collections from blocks.

Cllr Maium Miah suggested that the manner in which Labour Councillors had referred to the “mums” in the nurseries campaign sounded like they had been using the “mums” to make a political point.

Labour’s Cllr David Edgar spoke in favour of getting a bid to bring the service back in house.  He thought the contract was too long, and the size of the contract was wrong – it had been packaged up badly.  He thought it did not allow smaller organisations to bid for part of the work. There was little benefit from competition here, as there were really only a very few very large companies up for these contracts.

Cllr Chris Creegan was worried about the possible loss of the local depot.  He thought refuse collection was not difficult, but this Administration had “dropped the ball” and was unable to manage the contract.  In his ward, there was too much flytipping.

Cllr Josh Peck said that whether the Mayor brought the service back in house or re-let it, he needed to do more contract enforcement, because there was so little now.  Residents spoke about bins being piled high and collections were missed.  He gave local examples.  He appreciated that complaints were low and the Council pointed this out often.  He referred to ways in which the Council depressed the figures by not counting all reports of missed collections as a formal complaint.

Cllr Rachael Blake cited local examples: she had been asked to help the contractor replace a lost fob – she should not have to do this, and this shows the lack of quality of management.  She was surprised Tower Hamlets First would consider losing a local depot as she thought they took local employment seriously.

Cllr Shahed Ali then spoke, pointing out that he was speaking when called to do so by the Speaker.  He said rubbish was important to him (another laugh from some on the Labour benches).  He mentioned the cuts in Council finances of the last few years.  He pointed that although most Labour councillors had complained about the service tonight, virtually none had approached him – and he was always happy to talk and welcomed feedback. Although Cllr Saunders had said our record on recycling was poor, Cllr Ali thought it was one of the highest in London and he pointed out that the Council had won many awards.

Cllr Whitelock said this had happened before: Labour Councillors reported real issues and Cllr Ali went on about the awards.

Twenty-six Labour and Tory Councillors voted the motion through.  There was little of substance in the text and it appears to have been used as a platform for Labour to speak.

Cllr Gold said he was surprised there was so few Tower Hamlets First supporters in the public gallery.  He said he had found ten Tower Hamlets First councillors who owned properties which were originally bought from the Council.  Rather scraping the barrel, he pointed out that one of the Tower Hamlet Fairness Commissioners had a rich husband.  He said that the Mayor and Tower Hamlets First councillors were “do as we say and not as we do” merchants.  This really was a much more grumpy and less polished performance than usual.